Foreign Office Advised Regarding Armed Intervention to Overthrow Robert Mugabe

Newly disclosed papers reveal that the UK's diplomatic corps cautioned against British military intervention to overthrow the former Zimbabwean president, the long-serving leader, in 2004, advising it was not considered a "viable option".

Government Documents Show Considerations on Handling a "Remarkably Robust" Dictator

Policy papers from the then Prime Minister's government indicate officials considered options on how best to deal with the "depressingly healthy" 80-year-old dictator, who declined to leave office as the country fell into turmoil and financial collapse.

Following the ruling party winning a 2005 election, and a year after the UK joined a US-led coalition to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Downing Street asked the Foreign Office in July 2004 to develop potential courses of action.

Policy of Isolation Considered Not Working

Diplomats concluded that the UK's policy of isolating Mugabe and forging an international agreement for change was failing, having failed to secure support from key African nations, notably the then South African president, the South African leader.

Courses considered in the documents were:

• "Seek to remove Mugabe by military means";
• "Go for tougher UK measures" such as seizing finances and shuttering the UK embassy; or
• "Re-open dialogue", the approach supported by the then departing ambassador to Zimbabwe.

"We know from conflicts abroad that altering a government and/or its harmful policies is almost impossible from the outside."

The FCO paper dismissed military action as not a "serious option," and warned that "The only nation for leading such a armed intervention is the UK. No other country (even the US) would be prepared to do so".

Cautionary Notes of Heavy Casualties and Jurisdictional Barriers

It warned that military involvement would cause significant losses and have "considerable implications" for UK nationals in Zimbabwe.

"Barring a severe human and political catastrophe – resulting in widespread bloodshed, large-scale refugee flows, and regional instability – we judge that no nation in Africa would agree to any efforts to remove Mugabe by force."

The document adds: "Nor do we judge that any other European, Commonwealth or western partner (including the US) would authorise or join military intervention. And there would be no jurisdictional basis for doing so, without an approving Security Council Resolution, which we would not get."

Long-Term Strategy Recommended

Blair's foreign policy adviser, a senior official, advised Blair that Zimbabwe "will be a real spoiler" to his plan to use the UK's leadership of the G8 to make 2005 "the year of Africa". The adviser stated that as military action had been discounted, "it is likely necessary that we must adopt a long-term strategy" and re-engage with Mugabe.

Blair appeared to agree, writing: "We must devise a way of revealing the falsehoods and misconduct of Mugabe and Zanu-PF ahead of this election and then afterwards, we could attempt to restart dialogue on the basis of a clear understanding."

The then outgoing ambassador, in his final diplomatic dispatch, had advocated cautious renewed contact with Mugabe, though he recognized the Prime Minister "would likely be appalled given all that Mugabe has said and done".

Robert Mugabe was ultimately removed in a military takeover in 2017, at the age of 93. Earlier assertions that in the early 2000s Blair had tried to pressure the South African president into joining a armed alliance to overthrow Mugabe were strongly denied by the former UK premier.